Effect of calibration environment on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors.
LeBouf-RF; Slaven-JE; Coffey-CC
J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2013 May; 63(5):528-533
The performance of two direct-reading organic vapor monitors (monitors) when calibrated at different environmental conditions was compared with charcoal tube results. Three MIRAN SapphIRe portable ambient air analyzers (SAP) and three Century portable toxic vapor analyzers (TVAs) were evaluated. Prior to sampling, the monitors were calibrated per the manufacturer's instructions using methane for the TVA flame ionization detector (FID) and isobutylene for the photoionization detector (PID), whereas the SapphIRe instruments were zeroed and the instrument's manufacturer-supplied library was used. For the first series of tests ("Part 1 - Same condition"), the monitors were calibrated under the same environmental conditions as those present during sampling. They were then challenged with four cyclohexane concentrations (30, 150, 300, and 475 ppm) under two extreme environmental conditions: 5 degrees C and 30% relative humidity (RH) (same/cold) and 38 degrees C and 90% RH (same/hot). For the second series of tests ("Part 2 - Different condition"), the monitors were calibrated at approximately normal indoor environmental conditions (21 degrees C and 50% RH) and sampled at extreme environmental conditions (different/cold and different/hot). The monitor readings from the two methods were compared with the actual cyclohexane concentration determined from charcoal tubes using ratios and root mean square errors. A number of monitor failures, both below detection limit values in the presence of a known challenge concentration and erroneously high measurements, occurred in each part: same condition 20.7% (149/720) and different condition 42.4% (305/720), with a majority of the failures (>78%) during the hot and humid conditions. All monitors performed best at the same/cold, followed by the same/hot, in terms of closeness to the reference standard method and low within-monitor variability. The ranked choice of monitors for same/cold is PID > SAP > FID; for different/cold FID > PID > SAP; for same/hot SAP > PID > FID; and for different/hot PID > SAP (FID not included due to 100% failure rate).
Analytical-models; Analytical-methods; Sampling; Humidity; Monitors; Measurement-equipment; Analytical-instruments; Sampling-equipment; Organic-vapors; Environmental-factors; Equipment-reliability; Testing-equipment; Air-monitoring; Air-sampling-equipment; Toxic-vapors; Flame-ionization-methods; Relative-humidity; Air-temperature; Temperature-effects; Environmental-technology; Vapor-detectors; Failure-analysis; Hot-environments; Cold-environments
Ryan F. LeBouf, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
115-11-7; 74-82-8; 110-82-7
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Manufacturing
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
West Virginia University